Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

922Re: [existlist] neurons firing: part 2

Expand Messages
  • Paul R Turner
    Mar 6, 2001
    • 0 Attachment

      You missed my point. I was not suggesting that religion is a neurosis from the use of science merely pointing out the inherent dangers (which Freud fell into) in using scientific evidence (which is not what I'm suggesting you have done) to describe human action. My point was that scientific evidence is a form of reductionism just ONE example of many is psychoanalysis, which reduces actions, speech etc to the unconscious disregarding the workings of cognitive processes.Sometimes we can benefit greatly if we resist the 'atomism' of science, the desire to reduce everything to its small constituent.



      On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 22:18:47
      Edward Alf wrote:
      >if we are aware that the brain processes information by means of chemical
      >signals, how does that result in dismissing the benefits of religious life?
      >a "neurosis" is a mental or emotional disorder ... that was not my meaning
      >... how do you come to the conclusion that, simply saying that the brain
      >tends towards spirituality and the processing is by chemical signals,
      >implies a neurosis ...
      >i can see i have opened up a controversy here ...
      >----- Original Message -----
      >From: "Paul R Turner" <paulturner@...>
      >To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      >Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:38 PM
      >Subject: Re: [existlist] neurons firing: part 2
      >> When we reduce human actions and emotions to scientific explanation we
      >risk the parochial view of the 'genetic fallacy', as Freud did in his
      >analysis of religion.
      >> By concluding religion was symptomatic of a neurosis it became easy to
      >dismiss the benefits of a religious life (though I am an atheist).
      >> Regards
      >> Paul

      Get 250 color business cards for FREE! at Lycos Mail
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic